I really don't know how to feel about this. The issue is incredibly complicated, and I see how the woman who founded the charity thinks that she is helping. The biggest problem is that she is giving addicts money, feeding their addictions in order for their compliance. I understand that is supposed to be voluntary, but is it really? Are they seeing the impact this could make on their lives once sober or just the money that will fuel their next fix?

_________________Otters main method of attack is forceful hugging. ~amandabear

Uh yeah, I see that as extremely problematic. Active addicts are kind of not the most stable-minded people and when it's hard for people who are of very sound mind and body to be sterilized - I just don't see how she's doing this and who agrees to perform these procedures.

"If I had enough money, there wouldn't be any pregnancies for drug addicts," That feels so arrogant.Rather than actually helping the addict find a better life, she is trying to prevent the unknown, or the maybe possible. I know I am not expressing myself well. This feels to me so much like the anti-abortionists who don't want abortion at any cost but will do nothing to help with the unwanted pregnancy. Only here it is no pregnancy and no one wants to deal with the unwanted addict.

"If I had enough money, there wouldn't be any pregnancies for drug addicts," That feels so arrogant.Rather than actually helping the addict find a better life, she is trying to prevent the unknown, or the maybe possible. I know I am not expressing myself well.

No, that makes sense. Instead of trying to solve the actual problem at hand, she's trying to prevent something that may or may not ever have happened anyway.

She recently came to the UK and the Daily Mail are wetting their pants over her.

I have a friend who is a social worker in a child protection service and she thinks this is a great idea.

I think it's very short sighted logic and I'm pretty sure our government shouldn't be allowing a one woman eugenics movement to be taking advantage of people who probably aren't in the best place in their lives to be making these kinds of decisions. I think putting her energy into supporting people with addictions to have better access to contraception would be not so morally scary.

Also, lots of people have posted on the PPK about how they've had problems convincing their doctors to sterilise them in spite of giving informed and rational arguments for undergoing the procedure. I'm wondering if this woman has doctors who support her 'cause' to carry out the procedures?

I would feel a lot better if she was like...paying to get female drug addicts IUDs or something not permanent.

And how about some drug treatment, too? She does go on to say that they can get IUDs (don't know if they will pay for them) but this was disturbing to me: "I think a lot of people should realize they're never going to be good parents, and never have children." Who the fork are you, lady? Plenty of people get clean and do very well for themselves. The majority, maybe not, but sheesh, it's like you're saying it's impossible and they're doomed because they're addicts.

it says in the article that she's adopted four children from an addict. if her concern is for the children of drug addicts, why not set up a charity that would actually benefit these kids instead of enabling their parents?

Essentially, this is eugenics. Advocating removing "problem" segments of the population from the gene pool is never a good idea.

This is super forked up.

_________________If you spit on my food I will blow your forking head off, you filthy shitdog. - MumblesDon't you know that vegan meat is the gateway drug to chicken addiction? Because GMO and trans-fats. - kaerlighed

First of all, as you all have said it's not even close to solving the problem. It's taking advantage of people during a time of desperation/vulnerability. For the "greater good"? Debatable.

If this person truly wanted to help this situation, she would be advocating for better quality, accessible pre natal health care, improve access to birth control....so many other things. Does she realize that the guilt and shame that pregnant mothers with addictions face makes them avoid accessing health services? The harm this can do to a fetus is tremendous.

Then there's the whole eugenics argument...She's not only saying that drug addicts are so flawed that there genes shouldn't be passed on to future generations, but she's also saying that society would be better if children exposed prenatally to drugs did not exist. What kind of message does that send about her attitudes towards individuals with disabilities? Yes she adopted kids with prenatal drug exposure....but what will she tell them? I'm doing this so no more kids like you are ever born? Argh.

This whole thing reminds me very strongly of Indira Gandhi's sterilization campaign in India in the 70s/80s. The goal was to bring India to the forefront of the world's productive nations by getting population growth under control but of course without addressing any of the root causes behind or motivations for having lots of children. The targets ended up being rural peasants and urban migrant workers who were lied to in order to gain consent for the procedures- a large number of them were illiterate and had no idea what they were putting their thumbprints on. A family member of mine used to work in a rural bank during this period and he was not officially allowed to grant loans to local farmers unless they had a certificate of sterilization.

Either way, when someone is desperate, either for a fix or for a way to provide for themselves and their family, it's not really a matter of clear and conscious consent, is it?

Wait, so non-addicts have to prove they're of sound mind and undergo psychiatric evaluation and then wait ten years to prove they're serious about wanting sterilization, but addicts can get PAID to be sterilized? That's not screwed up at all.ETA: Realized this sounded weird. I meant that it's screwed up to pay someone to be sterilized who's not of sound mind, while people of sound mind can't get doctors to sterilize them because the doctors are afraid they're NOT of sound mind.

Wait, so non-addicts have to prove they're of sound mind and undergo psychiatric evaluation and then wait ten years to prove they're serious about wanting sterilization, but addicts can get PAID to be sterilized? That's not screwed up at all.ETA: Realized this sounded weird. I meant that it's screwed up to pay someone to be sterilized who's not of sound mind, while people of sound mind can't get doctors to sterilize them because the doctors are afraid they're NOT of sound mind.

This confused me as well. There are several women here on this board who have had so many issues getting doctors to even listen to the suggestion. Who knew that all they had to do was pretend to be strung out, and that not only could they get the procedure, they'd be PAID!

I don't understand how any doctor would go along with this.

_________________Otters main method of attack is forceful hugging. ~amandabear

I don't know. Drug addict's behavior is expensive. They clog up jails, emergency rooms, cause accidents, etc. Throw a pregnancy in there and the costs they incur becomes exponential. If they are unable to care for a child, that child needs to be put into foster care which is expensive and potentially devastating for the child. I grew up with a sibling that has drug problems, so I am well aware of the devastation they can cause emotionally and financially. Everyone else absorbs the responsibility of drug addict's behavior -- if some element can be removed from the equation and the addict is aggreeable to it, why not? $300 won't buy that much.

Maybe its because I don't want kids, don't understand someone's desire to have kids, so sterilization doesnt seem that bad to me. I am also generally angry at drug addicts who consistently suck the energy, finances and joy out of other's lives -- if you haven't already guessed that.

Wait, so non-addicts have to prove they're of sound mind and undergo psychiatric evaluation and then wait ten years to prove they're serious about wanting sterilization, but addicts can get PAID to be sterilized? That's not screwed up at all.ETA: Realized this sounded weird. I meant that it's screwed up to pay someone to be sterilized who's not of sound mind, while people of sound mind can't get doctors to sterilize them because the doctors are afraid they're NOT of sound mind.

This confused me as well. There are several women here on this board who have had so many issues getting doctors to even listen to the suggestion. Who knew that all they had to do was pretend to be strung out, and that not only could they get the procedure, they'd be PAID!

I don't understand how any doctor would go along with this.

Well, it's the issue of who we (a White supremecist, heterosexist, abelist society) want to be reproducing and who we don't. Those deemed undesirable (racialized women, substance users, sex-workers, impoverished or disabled women) are often targets of coerced sterilization (such as this bullshiitake) whereas desirable women (White, middle class, able-bodied) are nearly (or truly) coerced INTO having children.

This kind of campaign is based in a logic of eugenics, is incredibly unethical and ultimately, doesn't actually address anything other than controlling the "wrong" kind of women's bodies.

_________________"I'd rather have dried catshit! I'd rather have astroturf! I'd rather have an igloo!"~Isa

"But really, anyone willing to dangle their baby in front of a crocodile is A-OK in my book."~SSD

I don't know. Drug addict's behavior is expensive. They clog up jails, emergency rooms, cause accidents, etc. Throw a pregnancy in there and the costs they incur becomes exponential. If they are unable to care for a child, that child needs to be put into foster care which is expensive and potentially devastating for the child. I grew up with a sibling that has drug problems, so I am well aware of the devastation they can cause emotionally and financially. Everyone else absorbs the responsibility of drug addict's behavior -- if some element can be removed from the equation and the addict is aggreeable to it, why not? $300 won't buy that much.

Maybe its because I don't want kids, don't understand someone's desire to have kids, so sterilization doesnt seem that bad to me. I am also generally angry at drug addicts who consistently suck the energy, finances and joy out of other's lives -- if you haven't already guessed that.

It's important to remember that drug addicts aren't just being selfish jerks. Addiction is a disease. The disease makes the person act in undesireable and yes, often shitty, ways. But it doesn't make them any less of a human being. Someone with an addiction disease will always be an addict, true-- but that's not to say they can never become sober or rehabilitated.

As mentioned in this thread and in other areas of the PPK, most people are actively encouraged by the medical industry against making the decision to undergo voluntary sterilization when they are mentally and physically stable. How is it in any way justifiable or ethical to doubt and undermine the decisions of clear-minded individuals, but assume that a drug addict, when presented with $300, will be making a rational decision that takes into account the long-term implications of an irreversible procedure?

You say "$300 won't buy that much," and maybe so. But that's not how addiction works- crackheads aren't sitting down with spreadsheeats planning when to roll over their CD to maximize interest and thus buy more rock. $300 is more than enough to buy the next fix, and as such it is an unfair incentive. You may as well call the program "Vasectomies for Heroin".